Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:57:23.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of the oriental fruit moth, Cydia molesta (Busek) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), at a district level by mating disruption with synthetic female pheromone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. A. Vickers ,
G. H. L. Rothschild  and
E. L. Jones
R. A. Vickers
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A. C. T. 2601, Australia
G. H. L. Rothschild
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A. C. T. 2601, Australia
E. L. Jones
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Agricultural College and Research Station, Yanco, N.S. W. 2703, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mating disruption of Cydia molesta (Busck) was attempted by treating, with pheromone, all orchards in a small but discrete peach-growing district in New South Wales for two successive years. In the final year of the trial, two former control orchards were also treated with pheromone. The efficacy of the treatment was examined by monitoring fruit and shoot damage, male captures in pheromone traps, captures of both sexes in feeding lures, mated status of wild females and numbers of immature stages in trap bands. It was concluded that mating disruption was a viable alternative to conventional insecticides.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 625 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, F. S. (1961). Effect of density on animal sex ratio.—Oikos 12, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardé, A. M., Baker, T. C. & Cardé, R. T. (1979). Identification of a four-component sex pheromone of the female oriental fruit moth. Grapholitha molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).—J. Chem. Ecol. 5, 423–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardé, R. T., Baker, T. C. & Castrovillo, P. J. (1977). Disruption of sexual communication in Laspeyresia pomonella (codling moth), Grapholitha molesta (oriental fruit moth) and G. prunivora (lesser appleworm) with hollow fiber attractant sources.—Entomologia exp. appl. 22, 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlton, R. E. & Cardé, R. T. (1981). Comparing the effectiveness of sexual communication disruption in the oriental fruit moth (Grapholitha molesta) using different combinations and dosages of its pheromone blend.—J. Chem. Ecol. 7, 501–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaudhry, G. U. (1956). The development and fecundity of the oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha (Cydia) molesta (Busck) under controlled temperatures and humidities.—Bull. ent. Res. 46, 869–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, B. A. & Cardé, R. T. (1981). Management of the oriental fruit moth in Michigan with synthetic sex pheromone [abstract].—XVI Int. Congr. Ent. 1980, 248.Google Scholar
Deseö, K. V. (1971). Study of factors influencing the fecundity and fertility of codling moth (Laspeyresia pomonella L., Lepid.; Tortr.).—Acta Phytopathol. Acad. Sci. Hung. 6, 243–252.Google Scholar
Dustan, G. G. (1964). Mating behaviour of the oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae).—Can. Ent. 96, 1087–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentry, C. R., Beroza, M., Blythe, J. L. & Bierl, B. A. (1975). Captures of the oriental fruit moth, the pecan bud moth, and the lesser appleworm in Georgia field trials with isomeric blends of 8-dodecenyl acetate and air-permeation trials with the oriental fruit moth pheromone.—Environ. Entomol. 4, 822–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentry, C. R., Bierl-Leonhardt, B. A., Blythe, J. L. & Plimmer, J. R. (1980). Air permeation tests with orfralure for reduction in trap catch of oriental fruit moths.—J. Chern. Ecol. 6, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagley, E. A. C. (1974). Codling moth: emergence, sex ratio, and abundance.—Can. Ent. 106, 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclellan, C. R. (1972). Sex ratio in three stages of field collected codling moth.—Can. Ent. 104, 1661–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nel, R. I. (1940). The validity of the bait-trap method of spray timing in codling moth control.—Entomology Mem. Dep. Agric. Un. S. Afr. no. 2 55–76.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. L. (1972). The ecology of oriental fruit moth (Cydia molesta) in relation to other pests of canning peaches in South Australia.—148 pp. M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Adelaide.Google Scholar
Roehrich, R., Carles, J. P. & Tresor, C. (1977). Essai préliminaire de protection du vignoble contre Lobesia botrana Schiff. au moyen de la phéromone sexuelle de synthèse (méthode de confusion).—Revue Zool. agr. Pathol. veg. 76, 25–36.Google Scholar
Rothschild, G. H. L. (1975). Control of oriental fruit moth (Cydia motesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)) with synthetic female pheromone.—Bull. ent. Res. 65, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, G. H. L. (1979). A comparison of methods of dispensing synthetic sex pheromone for the control of oriental fruit moth, Cydia molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Australia.—Bull. ent. Res. 69, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, G. H. L. (1981). Mating disruption of lepidopterous pests: current status and future prospects.—pp. 207–228.in Mitchell, E. R. (Ed.). Management of insect pests with semiochemicals. Concepts and practice.—514 pp. New York, Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, G. H. L., Vickers, R. A. & Morton, R. (1984). Monitoring the oriental fruit moth, Cydia molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), with pheromone traps and bait pails in peach orchards in south-eastern Australia.—Protection Ecology 6, 115–136.Google Scholar
Tanaka, F. & Yabuki, S. (1978). Forecasting oriental fruit Moth, Grapholitha molesta (Busck), emergence time on the pheromone trap method by the estimate of temperature.—Jap. J. appl. Ent. Zool. 22, 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar